Dr. Lynn Margulis was always an iconoclast—and now, even after her tragic passing, she continues to teach us a great deal. While many know that Lynn Margulis was once married to astronomer Carl Sagan, in scientific circles she was best known for her theory of symbiogenesis. This theory proposes that inherited variation does not come from random mutations in genes but from long-lasting interaction between organisms.

Steve Goodwin, Dean of Natural Resources at the University of Massachusetts, understands that his colleague would “take the theory of evolutionary biology and see how far she could push it.”Given the prevailing Darwinian dogma, her challenge was very gutsy indeed. Strict Darwinists, Margulis pointed out boldly, “miss bacteria, protoctista, fungi, and plants. They take a small and interesting chapter in the book of evolution and extrapolate it into the entire encyclopedia of life.”

Predictably, Lynn Margulis affronted the dogmatists; some of them even called her a throwback to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who’d argued for a theory assuming the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Given the attitudes of conventional biologists, this was a damning dismissal. Thus when Margulis insisted on exploding the reigning paradigm, she was risking her professional reputation, even her career. Today it seems clear that it’s not either/or—that a fuller understanding of life needn’t discard all the Darwin/Wallace doctrine, but it does require looking at the full range of evidence.

David Ray Griffin has recently reminded us that for Margulis, the most difficult challenge was not the scientific question but the “science-education problem”: “how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition”.

The family of Lynn Margulis has announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73. She had suffered a serious hemorrhagic stroke on Friday, November 18 – so serious that there was no chance of recovery.

Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.

In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it but also – always known for her courage – announced her views, writing in 2007:

“Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization. I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie.” Asking: “Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by ‘hijacked airplanes’?”, she gave the scientific answer:

This is the expert-packed feature-length,Pre-Release v1.3, Low-Res documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Help us to make the most of the opportunity provided by the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to publicize the evidence about the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. Visit the dedicated website http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org to watch or download the high-res video.

Support AE911Truth by sharing the website http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org with your family, friends, and associates – and have them watch it on high resolution Pay Per View and/or download the film also.

Several have Ph.D’s — including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis. She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the “overwhelming” evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC.

High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.

9/11 family members and psychologists ground the technical information with heart centered support for a new investigation and a close look at the psychology of 9/11in this milestone production of AE911Truth: http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org

While it is recognized that through the use of meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials the standard of excellence in evidenced-based medicine (EBM) stands alone on a pinnacle, there is nonetheless an evidence-based methodology that can be applied across the board in other decision-making areas. Though research into the events of 9/11 has not yet attained the rigor achieved by EBM, it is still possible to rank the research in this field according to evidence-based principles. This article explains the principles, points to sources that exemplify them, and argues the ethical obligation of librarians and journalists to advance those sources .

Nine-eleven has done more to change the world’s political landscape than any other event since World War II.

And 9/11 is far from over: it triggered what Western leaders have declared an “endless” or “generational” war on terror. Even President Obama stated in March 2009 that the Afghan-Pakistan border region “has become the most dangerous place in the world” for the American people.[1]

Increasingly, however, the official account of its cause has come under rigorous scientific scrutiny and doubt. In Europe, strong media coverage followed the unchallenged 2009 discovery of high-tech military explosives in the World Trade Center dust.[2]

Given the enormous international expense, suffering, and death that continue to hemorrhage from the wound of 9/11, it is vital that librarians and media professionals acquire the knowledge and ethical support to perform their part in addressing the rising tide of doubt.

1. Is there good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11?

Though the imagery of the events of September 11, 2001, is profoundly etched in the collective human memory, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that these events were not brought about in the manner described by The 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.[3i]

Harper’s magazine referred to the Commission’s report a “a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.”[4]

The 9/11 Commissioners themselves reported the obstruction of their mandate by the C.I.A., in a New York Times editorial:

1. I have completed a video showing the analysis of the Balzac-Vitry controlled demolition that used hydrolics rather than explosives to initiate a total demolition. This analysis shows deceleration upon collision, as predicted in the paper, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. It also illustrates the symmetry of destruction, contrary to the “crush down” followed by “crush up” scenario propounded by Zdenek Bazant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

Anders Björkman is a structural engineer from France who became an early member of Richard Gage’s AE911Truth. He had previously given speeches in his country to people whose children had seen footage of the Trade Towers’ destruction and were worried that buildings could collapse from the top down. He reassured these parents that this couldn’t happen and posted his presentation on his web site where it gradually developed.

Anders Björkman

Björkman became a formal critic of the “Progressive Collapse” or “Piledriver” theory promoted by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, a consultant for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its work on 9-11. The Piledriver Theory basically posits that prolonged heating weakened the support columns of a single floor which caused the upper section to crush what was below it in a chain-reaction all the way to the bottom.

“I explained on my website that you cannot destroy a building by dropping the top on the bottom; you have to destroy it from the bottom,” Björkman said. “Then a lot of people criticized that and said, ‘But Dr. Bazant says the opposite, and he has written all these papers,’ so of course I looked at these papers, and said, ‘This Bazant is nonsense.’ But others said, ‘But he’s peer-reviewed. It has been published in a scientific journal—the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.’”

Björkman contacted Ross Corotis, the journal’s editor, saying Bazant was incorrect and asking if he could write a response to the article. Corotis said yes, so Björkman wrote what he called “a very simple article” and submitted it in early February to the journal. In June Corotis contacted Björkman and told him the intended to publish it, but first Björkman needed to sign a copyright agreement, which he immediately returned. In September Björkman contacted the journal to investigate the delay and was told Corotis was waiting for Bazant to submit “closure” or his response to Björkman’s response. Björkman’s article and Bazant’s response were finally published in July of 2010.